Question : Does giving consent to one person imply consent to another?

nope, I am saying there is no consensus or absolute, what you choose to believe is up to you, that doesn't make it a fact so at best you should be saying 'In my opinion with evidence from some scientists etc etc", and you are still pushing the same wrong accusation. Pro-choice means simply that a woman should be the only one to make the choice as to who, what, when and where her body is used, and I am still waiting for a pro-lifer to state what is different between a rape pregnancy and a non-rape pregnancy, is the zef somehow different, so yes, based on the medical fact that a pregnancy caused by rape is no different from one not caused by rape, your decision to allow abortion is arbitrary.

You also seem to want to gloss over the fact that no person (which is what you claim a fertilized ova is) can use another persons body without their consent, and even if they gain consent (expressed of implied) that consent can be removed at anytime even if that causes the death of the other, by giving the zef that right you are according superior rights to it, more than any other person has, unless you can provide any other situation where one person can force another to use their body in order to survive . .can you do that?

and exactly who are you to state that another persons choices are 'void', would you accept the same if it were forced upon you?

 

The fetus is not the woman's property.

- - - Updated - - -

Why are the woman's rights superior to the fetuses rights?

The woman could have avoided getting pregnant by choosing to not have sex. The fetus couldn't have avoided it.

 

I'm not 100% how it gets these chemicals, but isn't it in the egg and sperm? so best way to prevent that is not to have sex correct? Others way are contraceptions. Once it happens though um yea you know how I stand

 

1. I've stated the difference. Women have choice in consent to have sex, women do not have choice in forced rape. So therefore the unborn does nto have consent to be in the womb in rape/incest cases. So what i propose is allowing the woman a choice in the matter. She has choice in consentual sex and she also has choice in rape
2. No I've already hit on the subject of the unborn and pregnancy.
3. Yes actually I've stated my stance wouldn't change if I was allowed to become pregnant. Its a fact not an opinion on that

 

to which I fully agree .. but that is not what SteveJa is alluding to in his comment of saying that 50% of the hormones and chemicals come from the female, if they come from her then do they belong to her?

No superior at all, they are exactly the same rights as you have.

 

I do, and I respect that position, I don't agree with you on it and will argue against what you want to impose on women.

In molecular biology, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is a hormone produced by the syncytiotrophoblast, a component of the fertilized egg, after conception. Following implantation, the syncytiotrophoblast gives rise to the placenta.

 

Though you can offer no compelling support that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, it isn't even in legal terms, therefore it is but an opinion on your part.

So do you or do you not agree that consent to one person for one action does not imply consent to another person for another action.

So if the government mandated the following compulsory for all males who have reached an age capable of producing viable sperm, you would have no problem with it.

http://www.newmalecontraception.org/vasalgel/

If not, why not?

 

so basically i was right then that the chemicals come from the mom and dad.
I respect your stance as well

 

Consent for one action can imply consent for another in this case sex implies consent for pregnancy. Meaning the woman's actions imply consent for the unborn human being to be inside her aka pregnancy. So I disagree that consent by one person does not imply consent for another. Same can be said that a person driving a car is implying consent for an accident to happen, as it is also a risk of driving.
I do not support forced contraception no, man, or woman. Contraception and pregnancy are different. No human being exists in the man alone, or woman alone, it requires both genders, so preventing pregnancy is fine, but not mandatory prevention.
I have problems with legal killing of human beings that have not broken any laws. Do you know of any laws that state it is illegal for the fetus to be inside the woman? If you do we all are law breakers. I am also against forced contraception, but ti should be readily available to include the one you linked.

 

If consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, does that mean the woman can't use contraception, either, because she consented to pregnancy?

 

No she can, but having sex is consent to pregnancy regardless if you use or not. There's still risk. I've already stated this, so please tell me where you are going with this

 

IF consent to sex means consent to pregnancy, then a woman can neither prevent nor terminate a pregnancy, because she consented to pregnancy by having sex.

 

Only way to prevent pregnancy is to not have sex, unless he/she removes their reproductive ability. Contraceptives do not do this, they merely reduce the risk, but it is still there. He/she removes the risk of getting someone or becoming pregnant when they remove their ability completely aka removing testicles, removing ovaries

 

Using your own logic, if the chemicals came from the male and female then the female retains ownership of them until they are expelled from her body, or she 'gifts' them to someone else and in that case as she owns them she has every right to do with them as she pleases. .. however this does not gel well with the pro-life mantra of a separate individual at conception, if it is a separate individual then nothing that makes it up can be owned by another person, if the chemicals produced by the fertilization are wholly owned by the zef then it releasing them is the instigation of forcing the females body to 'adjust' for the zef. Anything that changes the normality of her body that is un-consented is legally defined as an injury.

So which is it -

a) the chemicals, hormones produced by the fertilized ova are the property of the woman
b) the chemicals, hormones produced by the fertilized ova are the property of the ova

 

Agreed getting into a car is implying to take the risk of being injured in a crash .. however, do we refuse to give medical help to a person injured in a car crash due to the implied risk they took, and if another person is injured due to the negligence of the car driver do we force them to provide life sustaining requirements for the injured person even if it means the injured person dying?

for example, a drunk driver hits another car, in that car is a 4 year old child, the child suffers life ending injuries unless an organ donor can be found .. coincidentally the drunk driver is a perfect match. Is he forced by law to provide the required organ?

Even though by doing this it would pretty much eradicate elective abortion .. just how committed are you to stopping the 'murders'?

Yes I do, all rape and incest laws.

 

The hormones actually aren't property of anything, the woman and the man lend them to the unborn so it can protect itself from the woman's body. Why is this? Because nature knows the body will attack what is not a part of it (you know different separate) So the body knows that it will reject the unborn without this chemical. If the woman's body didn't want to protect the unborn, it would not provide this chemical to it.

 

If driving implies risks to injury, then why all of a sudden does sex not imply risk to pregnancy? Again you bring up this refusal of medical care. Do we deny a pregnant woman medical care? The answer is absolutely not, with abortion even 100% illegal it is still no. She still gets care. Denying a procedure that kills another 100% the time is something medical personnel should always deny, unless the woman's life is gonna be lost too. I said it before I'll say it again 1 innocent death is better then 2 innocent deaths as tragic as it is. That decision is the woman's in those cases, or her next of kin if she can not make the decision. And have you read the case where they kept the pregnant woman alive who fell into a coma so the baby could live? also life threatening to the mother is an exception i support for termination why you insist it isn't i don't know.
No on the drunk driver, but he should be, this is a case of 1 for 1 on life and one of them is clearly guilty of a crime. The 4 year old boy is innocent, why should his life be taken when the drunk driver broke the law. I know due process....The fetus is innocent it broke no laws, why should it be condemned to death simply because the mother does not want it? I'll save that 4 year old over a drunk driver and I will protect the unborn over the will of the woman, unless her own life will be lost if she remains pregnant, or the fetus will not survive ever outside the womb, or is already dead.
Committed enough to do it without stopping all human life from being produced. You are comparing protecting a human life from absolute death to forcing people to become sterile and think it's in the same ball park.
Zero rape and incest laws say the fetus broke the law. Show me one rape/incest law that says the fetus is a criminal.

 

when you give consent you are also given consent to the possible consequence. you assume the risk as long as you was informed of those risk
It is why you cant sue a contraception company if it fails because that company informed you the risk of failure

Ok lets go with your premise if a women gets pregnant and the partner that was also involved doesn't want that child you have no legal recourse of that father to be responsible in any way for that child. you shouldn't be able to sue him for any financial support
If the mother is able to legally separate the actions from the possible consequences of those actions and bare no responsibility then so should the father

 

You're avoiding my point that your pro-life argument, "consent to sex is consent to pregnancy" is specious, because if it rules out abortion, it would have to rule out contraception. If by having sex, a woman agrees to pregnancy, the use of contraception would break that agreement, in the same way abortion would. The use of contraception means precisely, "I do not agree to pregnancy," even if that contraception fails.

 

Negative ruling out killing another human is not the same as preventing it from happening. Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy you do not have to rule anything out. I avoided nothing in my response. I specifically either to you or someone else that the only way to prevent pregnancy is to not have sex, or remove the testicles, or ovaries.. otherwise there is consent to the risks involved to include pregnancy. There was no avoidance. Use of contraception says I do not want to get pregnant, but if I do I am consenting that the risk is there if i get pregnant, if it fails. Everyone knows that contraception is not 100% effective.

 

yes it does because you are aware contraception is not 100% full proof so you assume the risk there for you gave consent to that risk
Not wanting a consequence to not happen doesn't excuse you the responsibility to those consequences if it does
I cant point a gun at some one fire the gun and use the excuse to get out of murder by saying a didn't want to kill him that wasnt my intentions

 

No one is trying to separate the action of having sex to the consequence of becoming pregnant. In that event, it is the woman's responsibility to deal with those that consequence in the way that is best for her. EITHER choice she makes will take a physical, emotional and financial toll on her ALONE.

 

so your agreeing then if the women decides to have the child against the wishes of the father then he should not be held responsible for that child financially or in anyway.

If a mother is able to legally terminate the responsibility of having a child by aborting that child then so should the father if he doesn't want a child he also should be allowed to abort the responsibility

 

Assuming a risk is not the same as giving consent for it. If contraception fails, that's what abortion is for.

If you point a gun at someone and fire it, you are not "assuming a risk," you pretty much intend to hurt someone. Analogy fails.

 

but death doesn't always happen. I said murder not harm